h a l f b a k e r yThe word "How?" springs to mind at this point.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Since Satan does nothing more than sit around in hell and scheme, I'll bet he has a lot of really great ideas he's thought of over the years. Of course, since he's supposed to hate us he never let us in on any of them (except porn), so maybe if we let him out he'll become our friend and teach us how
to build more fuel-efficient cars, get along with our neighbors, and bowl a perfect 300. Of course, if I'm wrong, we'll all fall under his power and be thrown into a lake of fire, etc., etc.
The Time Bandits
http://www.amazon.c...102-0527395-7472949
The 'Evil' character fits AfroAssault's vision rather nicely. [DrBob, Apr 17 2001, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Quotes from "Time Bandits"
http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0081633
Show me... fast breeder reactors. [centauri, Apr 17 2001, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Satan's just a click away
http://www.churchofsatan.org
You wanna contact Satan? Here's his web page. Actually, these folks have some pretty interesting ideas and are really just in-your-face humanists (if you ignore all that crap about "magic" or "magik" or "magick"). [Monkeylawyer, Apr 17 2001, last modified Oct 05 2004]
(?) Interesting argument
http://www.godfire.net/descenders3.html
[thumbwax, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Beelz
http://www.sing365....36C4825709900287623
[ato_de, Jan 11 2006]
(?) Dracula has a moon base
http://www.drmcninj...moonbase-759974.gif
[normzone, May 07 2008]
[link]
|
| |
Whooo let the Satan out??!! |
|
| |
I dunno, Afroassault, according to some Christians of my aquaintance Satan actually controls a lot of the world ("The fleshly world is the realm of Satan" is how one fellow put it.) |
|
| |
But since I am an unbeliever, I'm pretty ambivalent on this one. Just don't be sacrificing any black goats in my shed, please. |
|
| |
Dog Ed: does Satan control NASDAQ? |
|
| |
Wes: I dunno. Not religious enough. |
|
| |
HalfBakers Digest version: Lucifer was cast to the side of the bottomless pit not only because he himself partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil before communicating through the serpent - the most 'subtle' of creatures - (and perhaps the most important reference to Lucifer himself is the word 'subtle') ,but also because of his anger that 'God' gave Adam control over the earth as Adam was made of the earth, etc., while Lucifer-The Son of the Morning- was bejewelled in precious stones. Basically, Lucifer wants mankind to know what is of the Tree of Knowledge...
Rant: BTW, I'm sure I used to be married to Lucifer-quite greedy and manipulative-amazing resemblance to human. Now if and when I speak to her I always address her as 'Whore Of Babylon". |
|
| |
sorry, too risky an undertaking for me. |
|
| |
I didn't think he was 'leashed' to begin with? Doesn't that part come later? |
|
| |
This was half-baked in The Time Bandits, where the character 'Evil' has a good rant about God.
Evil: "God's not interested in technology. All that power and what did he come up with? 43 species of parrot. Nipples for men. If I'd been in charge I'd have started with Lasers, Day One!" |
|
| |
Oh DrBob, dear DrBob, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of the Internet Movie Database. |
|
| |
Why the presumption in this idea of his existence in the first place? |
|
| |
All halfbaked ideas proceed from an assumption and generally take the format 'if so and so, then why not this'. Your function, as a half-baker, is to either rubbish the assumption (using actual proof is considered a good method), flame the objective (any old excuse is admissable here), or claim that you thought that this idea was for something else. |
|
| |
Ah. A newcomer thanks the good Dr. |
|
| |
So, then I flame the objective -- and vote this one down. Given the assumption of Satan, and given the assumed nature of this being from existing theological and metaphysical literature, and given that he may in fact be currently leashed (an assumption of the idea, if not of the existing literature) then it is clearly a patently bad idea to perform any unleashing of his fork-tailed ass. |
|
| |
DrBob, thank you for introducing Time Bandits into the canon of Films Recognized by Halfbakers. |
|
| |
//...how do we go about contacting Satan?// |
|
| |
Try contacting the housekeeper who let the Howling Man out of the closet. |
|
| |
Thanks also to PeterSealy. |
|
| |
If Satan was made in mans image as is believed of God how do we know that he has not just grown old, sick, tired or even died from boredom waiting? |
|
| |
griffin: Satan is a renegade angel whose soul (sorry) purpose is to usurp God's authority and power. Not at all like a man . . . more like a woman
(covers head and cowers while dodging the coming angry female entries) |
|
| |
Wasraw: If you believe Satan to be different to God, his supposed oposition, then you are possibly right. However, everything we have knowledge about is exposed to our (human) interruptation as this is our only scale of comparison. Read Hume perhaps you will change your mind. |
|
| |
Griffins come in 2 sexes and may rise to the bait with too much exposed misogyny. You need to get out more. |
|
| |
Actually, wasraw, you are very much correct. In the Hebrew, the word for 'desire' that is used as part of the curse on woman after the fall is only used twice in the Bible at all. The other time, it is used to describe evil's desire to overtake Cain (I *think* it was Cain...). Very astute of you. ;) |
|
| |
Do I understand you correctly, you say that the Hebrew word for desire was used in PART of a curse on women and only used once more when describing Evil's desire. This is strong link between women and Evil? You need to get out more too. |
|
| |
Maybe we should just unleash Phil, Prince of Insufficient Light, and see what happens. |
|
| |
I doubt that any reference in the Bible was written with the intent to portray women in general as evil. I suspect, rather, that the passages absterge has in mind intend to portray evil as "woman," i.e., attractive, desirable, etc. in order to show how seductive evil can be -- as a warning against seeing evil as some silly or obviously grotesque monster caricature that is easily avoided. In a society as male-dominant and male-centric as that (and most societies at the time), there would have been little consideration given to the problem of how the comparison would portray women. You might conclude (wrongly, I think, but not entirely without justification) that the society was misogynistic, but I don't think the specific passages were intended that way. |
|
| |
In what I would interpret to be Judeo-Chirstian ontology, Satan is not in opposition to God at all. IN fact, there is no created thing that could possibly be in opposition to God. Satan, having been created by God, is entirely subject to God and His sovereignty. Satan is in opposition to the human will to be Godly, righteous and honorable; in otherwords, Satan's greatest opposition is human conscience (also created by God). |
|
| |
Hm. God certainly appears, to the unlearned anthropomorphizing mind, to be rather schizo. |
|
| |
Clarification: 'Your desire will be for your husband' was part of the curse on woman. It's the same word that is used only once more when, in the context of another curse, it describes how evil will perch on (forgive me if it was someone else; I'll reread it...) Cain's doorstep, with the intent of devouring him. I'm not saying that women are evil, folks, just making note of the fact that in the Hebrew that one particular word was used only twice, to describe the way the woman will relate to the man, very much like wasraw described it. <#include disclaimer.h> |
|
| |
griffin, it's not meant to be a link between women and evil, it is meant to describe a relationship of constant attempted usurpment of authority. Here... Woman is to Man AS Evil is to Humankind. Remember, this was part of a *curse*, and not the way things were originally intended or established. |
|
| |
The fact that a woman's desire for her husband is part of the curse would imply that God's original, unsullied-by-serpent, created intent for woman was that she not desire her husband at all. It's tough enough getting any with the cursed desire in effect. I say hooray for that wily serpent, more power to him. And thank God for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, too. This is all so ontologically confusing.... |
|
| |
gt, Satan is in opposition to God, because he desires (there's that word again) to overthrow him. You are right in that he is subject to God's sovreign power, so he has consigned himself to doing the next best thing, hurting and separating from God the things He loves, namely, us. |
|
| |
In the un-sullied original order, men and women were meant for each other, and did desire each other as companions, but women did not desire to usurp the man's authority, because there was none. It USED to be a truly mutual arrangement, but then Adam screwed up, so here we are. :P |
|
| |
Taken metaphorically, as I believe the story was originally intended, it teaches us that the most ideal ("God's intended") situation for men and women is to live and love as complete equals. But by the influence of evil desire (personified in the character of the serpent) we have the human condition where we struggle against each other for dominion. Through history, sheer physical domination has triumphed in this struggle, and has served to keep the weaker gender on the short end of it. If only "Christian" people had listened to the message of this story, they would not have stood for Paul's misogynistic principles, and showed him in the light of this story for what he was. |
|
| |
*Paul's* principles? Um, not to flame, but Paul didn't write the book of *Genesis*. <g> And I'll refrain from any further debate, because on the point of the Bible being literal or figurative we seem to differ, hence rendering me incapable of any intelligent conversation. :) I do, however, appreciate the opportunity to hear What you say !! |
|
| |
Sorry not to be explicit. I was referring to the principles of female inequality loudly espoused by Paul in his letters, and carried on by Christianity (as well as the rest of society) throughout the ages, in direct opposition to lesson of the story of Genesis. And that is even whether or not you take the story literally. In a literal interpretation, it should be clear that God's intent was for the sexes to be equal, and Paul is out of place demending that the husband be the authority over the wife, and man be in authority over woman in general. |
|
| |
Right, well, God's intent *was* equality, right up until the fall. Nowadays, there really *is* this whole Man-over-woman thing... Thanks, Adam! >( |
|
| |
Thus my comment (as well as the rest of society) above |
|
| |
Sorry to not be explicit. That's what I meant, UB. 'Nowadays' ~= (time > the fall) |
|
| |
Unfortunately the Bible has been read by many more less enlightened thinkers than your goodselves. I believe in Celtic tradition women held equal powers, with divorce, finance and warrior status. Then came the Romans who found this to be a little disconcernting when trying to keep their women folk in place. Of course Constatine then introduced Christianity and the misinterpretations of the Bible in middle ages deemed women by the church to be temptresses as Eve leaving 900 hundred odd years of injustice for women. Does this mean I can blame the Italians? |
|
| |
Trouble is we English with our "protestant ethics" have a tendency toward inhibition and to who do we look for inspiration on impulsive and passionate behaviour but the Italians. |
|
| |
Which Satan? The Shaitan (or 'Enemy') who appears only a couple of times in the Torah and associated mainstream Judaic texts is not the same as the Morning Star who appears in Revelations, who is not the same as the Lucifer who appears in Catholic apocrypha, who is not the same as the Devil who appears in mediaeval theology who... and so on. The entirely inconsistent figurative representation of *God's Enemy* incorporates the Promethean *Bringer of Fire* (also bound for his crime), the Zoroastrian Prince of Lies, various pagan Horned Gods and who knows how many other archetypes and icons besides. |
|
| |
Personally, I've always taken a sort of Gnostic slant. I don't trust any two-bit Godfather that claims to be the Grand High Poobah of the Universe, creates humanity as plantation labour (cf. the Sumerian *Enuma Elish* from which much of Genesis seems to have been cribbed), kicks Adam and Eve out when they become moral (what is he hiding?), then proceeds with such genocidal atrocities as the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, etc, etc. If the Satan you're talking about is the Promethean rebel who brought humanity the *light* to see a mere demiurge's tyranny for what it really is, then I'm with you all the way. While not wishing to offend those of a more conventional mindset, I think an intelligent reading of the Bible as a metaphorical, philosophical, cosmological, ethnological, metaphysical opus should leave any modern day liberal humanist with a bad taste in the mouth and a serious distrust of the God of Hate and Terror at the heart of it. |
|
| |
Happily, I think its only a matter of time before the Autocrat To End All Autocrats meets his doom from post-Enlightenment rationality (*Judge not, lest ye be judged*). As Aeschylus has Prometheus say to Hermes, Zeus's blindly obedient lackey: |
|
| |
How pompous and puffed-up with arrogance. How fitting for a minister of the gods. New, new are you to power, and think your hold is fast. But I have seen two rulers overthrown from those same heights and soon shall see the third, your present sovereign, hurled headlong in shame. |
|
| |
What if it's the fat one with the beard, who wears a red coat and says 'Ho, ho ho' a lot? |
|
| |
"kicks Adam and Eve out when they become moral (what is he hiding?), " |
|
| |
He got tired of them moralizing all over everything, so they got thrown out. Now when they knock, he turns off the lights and pretends not to be home. |
|
| |
The first Jehovas' Witlesses. |
|
| |
We let Satan out and he gives us 2 briliant advances in engine technology: the infernal combustion engine & the catastrophic converter |
|
| |
i dunno UnaBubba....Alanis Morrisette was apparantly god in the film Dogma......though i am pretty sure that Santa is Satan....i mean come on...santa knows everything..he is watching us now......even if he is fake....what if its our parents who plaaaay santa..they are satans little helpers who, whilst cooking our dinners and pouring our drinks are secretly feeding us with Satan worshipping drugs to make us turn to Satan in the end
And the end is soon.SOooooooOOOOOOOOn...
just a thought people......from Roisin, Kazs' sister. |
|
| |
"All that power and what did he come up with? 43 species of parrot. Nipples for men." |
|
| |
And thus God provides us the spirit of the half-bakery from the start! Go God! |
|
| |
<mind-numbing philosophic realization producing a trance-like state>The half-bakery itself is baked...</mind-numbing philosophic realization producing a trance-like state> |
|
| |
I agree with Unabubba's assessment. I see only two motivations for such an annotation in this context. It's either flamebait or whistling in the dark. |
|
| |
if the concept of 'satan' is what christians understand to be the opposing force to that of the god they worship, then i am all for the unleashing of 'satan'. satan is said in the bible to spread 'lies' about god, and the definition of lies in the context means statements in opposition to the 'truth' god tells. hence 'satan' stands for the questioning of the words of the bible and the 'truth' they tell. being an athiest and under the opinion that the bible tells little in relation to the truth (yes there probably was a man called Jesus, but son of a god? i dont think so) then 'satan' stands for my beliefs, so why not encourage his part in our world?
to conclude;
i dont believe in god or satan, but i advocate the unleashing of everyhting 'satan' stands for.
[NB: please nobody tell me i'm a devil-worshipper, i cant worship what i dont believe in. i merely support the concept and what the image stands for] |
|
| |
wander about - have a peek - hello stranger. |
|
| |
sheesh, christ, lord help me - ducks under duvet |
|
| |
You should do some further research into what Satan actually stands for before you give him your athiestic endorsement. |
|
| |
//if the concept of 'satan' is what christians understand to be the opposing force to that of the god they worship// |
|
| |
it's not. Christians do not believe Satan is a concept. They believe he is a fallen angel, a personality, if you will. The also do not believe he is *the* opposing force, but *an* opposing force. He is not God's equal and opposite, is what I'm trying to say. And what waugs said. |
|
| |
Your point is a good one (it's always wise to question any dogma, even one you follow), but I feel the argument does not do it any justice. |
|
| |
Lil Miss Yourself-
Satan's main objective in the Bible seems to be to oppose humanity, not God. He/She/It is often mentioned as preying on mankind, but rarely is Satan's relation to God mentioned. One of the biggest mentions is actually a friendly conversation between God and Satan in the book of Job. Also, nowhere in all of the Bible or any Christian mythology does Satan question or deny God's existence. As an atheist the biggest tie you can claim to Satan or the idea thereof is that you are helping humanity's demise by denying the divine. However, that only holds true if you believe in God. I recommend the book Mere Christianity, it explains such things quite nicely. |
|
| |
Lucifer (Son of the Morning, amongst other titles) was 2nd to God, and as such, was custodial guardian of Earth (and led other angels Lucifer held sway over) on the 7th day as God rested. When God gifted Earth to Adam, Lucifer was enraged - after all, Lucifer was the most majestic of all angelic beings. In all the universe there was not another like him in beauty. He wasn't made from dirt and spit as Adam was, so in Lucifer's mind, he is *above* that which is *of* the earth, otherwise - why would he have to descend from heaven to trod upon it's soil? Lucifer led the aforementioned angels (1/3 of heaven) to revolt against God and his loyal angels (the remaining 2/3 of heaven) in The War in Heaven before they were cast into the Bottomless Pit. In so doing - the ultimate insult has been cast upon Lucifer - being below the earth.
Thus goes the standard interpretation of the King James version.
See link "interesting argument" for unstandard interpretation which patches/punches holes in typical ministers/theologians theories, while embracing instead of abandoning the basic premise of Godliness. Author was a Southern Baptist for all of 9 months he could stomach - dissatisfied, and on a quest - followed lead of those he regarded highly, who also disagreed with standard interpretation - then took it a step further. |
|
| |
Wasn't that covered in a couple of Stargate:SG1 episodes last season? |
|
| |
I thought this was already done, let's propose the opposite |
|
| |
No, but he's a hell of a bowler. |
|
| |
Right. Not likely one to just walk up to you and hand you the thing you need. More likely to hide, disguised as a beautiful sunrise or a supping bee, while you discover the thing you need. |
|
| |
What makes you guys think that Satan hasn´t been unleashed? Have you looked at the condition of this world lately? |
|
| |
Actually, the Bible says that Satan is the ruler of this world(1John5:19; 2Cor4:3,4; Luke4:5-8). |
|
| |
Explains a lot!, don´t you think? |
|
| |
Yeah, there is a Satanist in everyone, and a (er) monotheist in everyone too.... and then there is the rational side that examines the evidence then concludes that the supernatural world is all in the imagination. Wake up everyone, we've all been duped into thinking there are Gods and Good/Evil Angels, and the fatcat pastor has a bigger wallet because of it. The more fiery the sermon, the fatter the wallet gets. |
|
| |
Then there is the monotheist vs. monotheist thing, like spy vs. spy, going on too. Well it was atheist vs. theist during the cold war (middle east was invisible then). Now it is Christian vs. Muslim. Anyway, it's all political, and the politician pays money to the church in return for the churches votes. It is getting even easier now to get religious support now that there are about 5 creationist musuems to every 1 real museums (a ratio I pulled out of thin air, but these carney museums are breeding like "rabbits that chew cud"). |
|
| |
For my part, I think there is an enormous
amount of energy to be harnessed from
the lake of fire. |
|
| |
This is not mine, nor is it an exact quote but... |
|
| |
It would be easy if people were either good or evil, but the line that separates good and evil runs through the heart of every man. |
|
| |
Maybe one of those invisible fence / shock collars would do after he was unleashed. |
|
| |
But if Satan is a serpent, the collar would slide right off. |
|
| |
Remember that in the Garden of Eden, the serpent told the truth. |
|
| |
in the Garden of Eden The serpent lied lol... He lied and said that God told a lie... Um... We die... so it is obvious who lied. However I must say unleashing satan is an excellant Idea! that way the day will be hastend for the consumation of all things and Heaven eternal for those who are in Christ so, heck being one in Christ Im all for it. Let him out lol.... but in all reality I dont think that he is bound in the earth... That sounds like the kind of extranious theology such as people argueing theology based on stroies out of "paradise lost" I think he will play the whole alien thing when we return to the moon and be like "Hey Hey Hey guys Im a big alien look at what I can do, worship me and you will never have to burn fossil fuels again! I will give you alien women! Alien Beer! Rides on first class criuse UFOs! |
|
| |
Snakes can't live on the moon, [wuhisn], there is no atmosphere and the temperature extremes would certainly freeze and melt or boil the snake blood repetitively, causing a rod/snake cycle that corresponds with the waxing and waning of the lune. |
|
| |
Why not? Dracula has a moon base (link). |
|
| |